[MUD-Dev] Balance of Character Power

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <199709281905.OAA03232 at dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com>, on 09/28/97 
   at 12:05 PM, "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> said:

>This allows Bubba the incredible talented and experience warrior 
>(read 100th level if you like) using the above broadsword a 3% 
>chance of fumble with embarassing results and an odd chance of weapon
> breakages, etc.  Joe newbie (read 1st level) with little skills has 
>about a .025% chance or (1 in 4000) of decapitating Bubba outright 
>(if I calculate right) and higher chances of less severe but damaging
> results.  Bubba's chances of decapitating Joe newbie outright are 
>about .1% or (1 in 1000).  

I've written on this a fair bit before.  Mostly on the old CC list and
Wout's later list.  The main contributors outside of myself were
AlexO, ChrisG, and Wout as I recall.

--<cut>--

} Given three fighters who are effectively equivalent, A, B, and C,
} where A is played by an aggressive and skillful player of topmost
} skill, B is played by an unskilled player who attempts to guide his
} own combat but without ANY skill and so may be worse than the
} automated fighter, and C is played by a player who relies on the
} default game fighting routines, and given three more fighters,
} respectively identical to the above, labelled A', B', and C', the
} table should  map out as:
}
}    |   A   B   C
} ---+--------------
}  A'|  50% 30% 10%
}  B'|  70% 50% 40%
}  C'|  90% 60% 50%
}    |

Where the percentage values are the probability that X will kill X' as
vs X' killing X.

Now the above was written in response to live inter player combat,
with both combatants being able to actively participate.  Moving to
the scenario of the logged-off player as vs another, then I would see
the same table still holding true, except that the definitions are
now:

  A is a logged off player with highly customised and skilled
    automated combat routines.
  B is a logged off player with piss-poor automation scripts.
  C is a logged off player who relies on the system default automation
    scripts.

and A', B' and C' would either be other matching logged off players,
or logged-on players with the original definitions.

Note also that the above patterns can be easily made more complex with
user-written defenses, such as castles, inns, etc, as well as having,
for instance, the attacked character auto-summon other characters to
aid in its defense.

  > l
  The Small Room
  ...
  JoeBob is here.
  > kill joebob
  You attack JoeBob.
  Suddenly Bubba, Bert, Billy, Ben, and Bussa appear in a flash of
    light!
  You are attacked by Bubba!
  You are attacked by Bert!
  You are attacked by Billy!
  You are attacked by Ben!
  You are attacked by Bussa!
  ...
  You are DEAD!
  Bubba. Bert, Billy, Ben, and Bussa dissappear in a flash of light!

--<cut>--

I still like the basic idea of the above table, tho I'm now far
removed from scriptable combat rounds, and I'd weigh the scales to
give a little more advantage to the skilled side -- say 5%/95% for the
twit vs expert.

>...Give David a chance against Goliath no 
>matter what the odds.  I don't see David EVER defeating Goliath in a 
>vanilla DIKU mud nor do I see it happening in basic D&D rpg.  

Precisely.  One of the targets of the above is to make the outcome of
any given combat highly unpredictable.  Conversely, I also want to
make combat extremely profitable.  Potentially fatal temptation is the
name of the game.  You can fight and die often, or plod and live long.

>For instance in the system
>I use, while not within my current mud's theme, an AK47 can inflict 
>140 points a damage per shot on an unarmored opponent not counting 
>the chance and severity of critical hits.  So any character could be 
>downed outright around 5% of the time regardless of skill level.  
>Firearms, grenades, etc. are far greater equalizers of power than 
>fists and swords.  

The key here with such weapons would seem to be permuting the
probability of a critical hit based on the shooter's stats.  Experts
make more head shots at long ranges, newbies are lucky to hit barn
doors.  Remember the Day of the Jackal.

Aside: I've been thinking about firearm-type weapons a bit lately. 
First conclusion: Have sound travel faster than bullets/lasers for
playability sake.  This allows players to react to being shot at
before the bullet hits them.  Consider the average SF arcade game. 
You can _see_ the laser beams move.  

>Now do players want a balanced or realistic combat system? Methinks
>many really don't. :) 
>As combat results approach "realistic" outcomes the power difference
>between experienced and in-experienced players is lessened. Therefore
>the combat game becomes less attractive as a risk-free  pursuit.  

True.  cf Wiggin's short lived characters.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...